Gay Patriot Header Image

Why must opposition to gay marriage always be “hate”?

Since I was driving to Denver yesterday, I was unable to participate in the “Kiss-in” at the Hollywood Chick-fil-A.  Had I been in town, I may well have joined in, having fun by finding a fetching fellow to kiss in front of the franchise, then walking into the restaurant and buying him a nice chicken meal, while ordering a nice cup of their most refreshing lemonade for myself.

Given some of the photos (via Instapundit) I saw from the “Kiss-In”, it seems that most protesters were more interested in expressing themselves than in presenting a positive image of same-sex affection. Yeah, a three-person kiss and signs like “Eat More Carpet” will go a long way to changing social conservative attitudes toward gays.

Now, these folks were surely having fun.  One thing that’s great about America is that they are free to express so flamboyantly their opposition to the views of the chicken chain’s president.

But, just as such flamboyant displays of disagreement likely will make it more challenging to change minds, so too is labeling opposition to gay marriage as “hate” little likely to foster dialogue.  According to the Los Angeles Times, the Rev. Sarah Halverson of Fairview Community Church did just that, saying she

 . . . respects [Chick-fil-A President Dan] Cathy’s right to free speech, she said, but also exercised her own right to speak out against what she considers hate speech.

“We have the right to stand in disagreement with another’s speech,” she said.

At a Chick-fil-A in Torrance where vandals painted the words “Tastes Like Hate” on the side of the restaurant Thursday night, the “National Same-Sex Kiss Day” was off to a slow start.

She’s does have the right to stand in disagreement.  That said, we should also consider whether the way we stand causes those with whom we disagree to reconsider their views.  Calling those views “hate speech” is not likely to effect such reconsideration.  If anything, it may cause them to double down in disagreement.

NB:  Tweaked the conclusion to improve its flow.

FROM THE COMMENTS:  Just Me finds it to be a shame that some utilize the confrontational tactics, “because I think gays would get much further by engaging in legitimate debate than the in your face, deliberately provocative displays that don’t pay any respect to the other opinion or with any attempt to find common ground.”

Share

60 Comments

  1. Because reducing your oppponent’s argumnet to “Hate” is much easier than developing cogent counter-arguments.

    Comment by V the K — August 4, 2012 @ 1:34 pm - August 4, 2012

  2. V, I think that pretty much sums it up!

    Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — August 4, 2012 @ 1:37 pm - August 4, 2012

  3. Yes, that does sum it up well.

    We should also add that calling marriage a “right” is also a great way to demonize opponents of gay marriage as people who seek to “suppress the rights of others.”

    Now there are lots of compelling and pragmatic arguments to be made in favor of gay marriage, but most gay-left activists are incapable of making them.

    Comment by Kurt — August 4, 2012 @ 2:51 pm - August 4, 2012

  4. Heck, I’m against gay marriage, but I could make better arguments for it than most of the people advocating it.

    Comment by V the K — August 4, 2012 @ 3:02 pm - August 4, 2012

  5. It’s another boy who cried wolf. The word “hate” is just becoming another “racist.” It’s getting so overused people will just tune it out.

    As you can see, it did not intimidate the millions of people that came out to support Chick-fil-A. Anybody with any intellectual honesty cannot say that every single one of those people hated gays and lesbians. Yet, our militant LGBT friends have tried to paint it that way.

    Again, this is about the leftist LGBT activists pure hatred of Christians. They have created a caricature in their mind of what Christians are, and what they believe and have set out to torment and destroy them. The militant LGBT crowd has no desire to try to peacefully coexist. Unfortunately this infects the general LGBT community as that their cues from the activists.

    The Christians that the LGBT activists rant about aren’t the ones that I know.

    Recently, I’ve been working for what could be called a “Christian” company. While most of the people there are practicing Christians, they don’t go around talking about Jesus all day long. I’ve never once heard a slur or nasty comment against a gay person – or anyone for that matter. The people there are not “weird” or “fringe elements” but normal, everyday people who joke around and have fun.

    The positive energy level around the office is just amazing. This is in stark contrast to the negativity of other leftist infested places where I’ve worked.

    I’ve heard before this could all be part of “projection” by the gay left. Since THEY are so negative and full of bitterness and hate, they ASSUME the other side feels the same way.

    LGBT activists also should be aware they can scream and insult and demean all they want but they are not going to be able to shame Christians out of their beliefs. The history of Christianity is persecution, and they wear the activist LGBT crowds assault on their faith as a badge of honor.

    Maybe they would know this if they actually bothered to associate with Christians.

    So the LGBT activist crowd can go ahead and continue with their antics, but if they want to actually change hearts and minds they are going to have to grow up and act civilized.

    I fully support the kiss-in on free speech grounds. However, free speech doesn’t make it a smart move strategically.

    Comment by Chris H — August 4, 2012 @ 5:12 pm - August 4, 2012

  6. The kiss in didn’t bother me that much-although I agree it probably would have done more to act as ambassadors for same sex unions than the in your face, we are intentionally trying to offend you actions.

    I confess I am not a huge fan of over the top pda for hetero or same sex couples, but a kiss isn’t that big a deal as long as the kissers weren’t disrupting the ability of the company to do business.

    As for using the “hate” label-that is pretty much par for the course when it comes to left oriented groups. If a group doesn’t line up in agreement with them, then they are automatically haters.

    It is a shame, because I think gays would get much further by engaging in legitimate debate than the in your face, deliberately provocative displays that don’t pay any respect to the other opinion or with any attempt to find common ground.

    Comment by Just Me — August 4, 2012 @ 5:14 pm - August 4, 2012

  7. “It is a shame, because I think gays would get much further by engaging in legitimate debate than the in your face, deliberately provocative displays that don’t pay any respect to the other opinion or with any attempt to find common ground.”

    To do this they would have to take the time to inform themselves regarding the issues at hand. In my home state, Maine, we have a vote coming up this fall to make SSM legal. In online debates, I have defended my stance against SSM on a state by state level. I have stated that given the very good domestic partner law in Maine, the measure is simply a do-nothing, feel-good measure. I feel the resources used to promote/defeat this measure could be put to better use. I am amazed at how little the gay left in Maine knows about the domestic partnership law in Maine or that unmarried people can now jointly adopt (a law that my partner and I helped put into place). Even after posting links to the state’s DP and adoption laws, I am called “faggot”, “delusional”, “self-hating”, “niggar”, “devoid of emotion” and a few other choice words for asking which “rights” they will get if this measure passes. The reason for the outburst is simple, there are very few benefits for couples in Maine above and beyond the DP/Adoption laws. They can’t defend their position.

    The gay left is completely uninformed about issues. Being able to use the words “hate” and “rights” seems to be all that is needed in that crowd for “intelligent” debate.

    Comment by TnnsNe1 — August 4, 2012 @ 6:11 pm - August 4, 2012

  8. If only the far left could see the hustle getting ran on homosexuals, they’d realize their hate of organized religion is constantly allowing the DNC to pimp them. Alright, May 9th, 2012: the LGBT activists’ lord and savior announces (in the same interview, no less) he supports “gay marriage”… but feels the states should decide for themselves, knowing some thirty states already have- against it. This also left the door open for groups to fund efforts to fund both pro- and anti- marriage activities. Still, Obama gets nine million dollars in three hours. Just this past week, the DNC decides to include “LGBTetc.-inclusive” language in their convention, also knowing about the thirty-plus states. Now homosexual activists and their ilk want to swap spit, vandalize restaurants, and cuss out teenage employees to counter the “hate” a guy shows for not condoning their sexual activities and ideologies…SMH My uncle Johnny always said a man’s d___ could make a slave out of him. And the sad part is, those on the far left will be the last ones to notice it’s happened to them.

    Comment by Douglas — August 4, 2012 @ 6:12 pm - August 4, 2012

  9. If I had the energy, I would promote a “take a gay to Chick-fil-a for lunch day.”

    But then, how would we identify ourselves? How would we make it clear to all those “other” people that we were on a mission and that they should be aware of our “difference” and “diversity” and get the signal to part the line and give us due deference for our commitment to, ….., to ….., to ….., well, you know, to ….., to ….., to ……, well, equality and justice and being better than, well ….., well ….., you know.

    Comment by heliotrope — August 4, 2012 @ 6:13 pm - August 4, 2012

  10. I’m straight. I lived in NYC for 16 years, 3 of which were in Greenwich Village while going to grad school at NYU. While the Stonewall riots were before my time, I’m somewhat familiar with them and I think I understand why the gay community felt like they needed to take an adversarial, provocative approach in the early years of the gay civil rights movement 40-50 years ago. But get over it. It’s like the race hustlers of today who want to pretend the past 50 years of civil rights progress never happened.

    I’ve always felt the Gay Pride Parades did not help advance the cause of the gay civil rights movement. Some guy riding a parade float stripped down to a Speedo with a pink boa wrapped around his neck while french kissing another hunky dude wearing leather chaps with the ass cut out doesn’t strike me as the ideal approach to win sympathy. The only thing it proves to me is that a small segment of the gay community is capable of being vulgar jackasses.

    And the thing is, every other day of the year the most prominent display of affection I’d see from gay couples I would encounter walking down the street or hanging out in Washington Square Park would be holding hands or wrapping their arms around each others waist. Or I might see a gay couple cuddled up on a blanket in Central Park, just like you’d see straight couples do. In other words, normal people engaging in normal behavior. I barely even notice it. That’s why I just don’t get the ostentatious displays at the GPP.

    I was wondering if the “Kiss In” was going to take on the character of a GPP or something less provocative. I haven’t yet drawn a conclusion. I assume the pictures we are seeing are being selected because they are some of the most provocative. I suspect that except for the cities with large gay enclaves it was pretty tame. The t-shirt that says “Jesus is a Cunt” was worn to intentionally offend the devout Christian owners of Chick-fil-A. It suggests anti-Christian bigotry. Pretty dumb choice. That person is no better than the vile, hateful Westboro Baptist Chruch bigots. I chuckled at the “Eat More Carpet” sign. I think it’s a clever parody of Chick-fil-A’s slogan, “Eat Mor Chikin”. I suspect the sign maker intended it to be offensive, but in today’s culture I think it’s more funny than offensive.

    Comment by Scott — August 4, 2012 @ 6:54 pm - August 4, 2012

  11. Excellent question Dan. To take V the K’s comment a step further, by characterizing your enemy’s position as hate, you cloak yourself in righteousness – seizing the moral highground.

    I don’t believe the hatred of Christians is just projection. My theory is that many gays associate with Progressives, and Liberals. Some of those latter folks describe themselves as Christian.

    Just as we’ve witnessed the Left’s war on women, blacks, Latinos, and the poor, those who call themselves Christian among the Left are the model of anti-gay hatred.

    Of course blacks believe there’s racism – all the (Progressive) whites practice it.

    Of course gays believe there’s homophobia – all the (Progressive)(so-called) Christians practice it.

    What most folks don’t recognise is the Progressive Christianity isn’t Christianity at all.

    Comment by DaveO — August 4, 2012 @ 6:57 pm - August 4, 2012

  12. Considering that there we’ve never seen heterosexuals every stage a protest or a parade to show the world their particular orientation; and coupled with the fact that gays people flaunting their sexual behavior in a public place where people cannot “opt out” of they or their children’s sensibilities being offended, it would seem to me that such types of “protest” should not be allowed so close the object of their protest in order to avoid the chance of serious and possibly violent confrontation.

    In the same way that the KKK and Westboro Baptist are allowed to hold rallies and protests even though the majority of Americans consider them outrageous and hateful, they nevertheless have certain conditions set upon them for those actions such as having permits, police presence and (in the case of Westboro and funerals) not being allowed within a certain distance of the object of their protest.

    It is no different when you consider everyday average Americans who likely do not want or need to be exposed to purposeful and often outrageous (3-way kissing, signs, etc) behavior could possibly be offended enough to engage in verbal confrontation which could escalate. And considering that no matter a persons stand on gay marriage or freedom of speech, the fact remains that gays make up a very small (but squeaky wheel megaphone loud) minority of people in this country. And even if 1/2 the country is ok or apathetic about gay marriage itself, I’m sure that even 1/2 of those 1/2 don’t want to actually see the expression of it in public and for reasons purely meant to incite or outrage.

    Go ahead and hold your kiss-ins but unlike the hundreds of thousands of patient, courteous everyday American supporters of Mr. Cathy’s right to free speech and to hold a millennial-aged conception of marriage, don’t even try and cry foul if you got engaged by these very same people in a much different way because you tried to shove their nose (and their views by extension) in it with your public displays.

    Comment by JonInVa — August 4, 2012 @ 7:33 pm - August 4, 2012

  13. Except this time I think the LGBT activists overplayed their hand and ceded the moral high ground.

    Hundreds of thousands of people came out to Chick-Fil-A peacefully to make a statement without nastiness and violence. They ate their meal watching the LGBT protesters march around with their nasty curse word ridden and anti-Christian signs and slogans.

    The reason this was so important was that it demonstrated to those “fence sitters” who are indifferent about SSM who the real haters are.

    Comment by Chris H — August 4, 2012 @ 7:44 pm - August 4, 2012

  14. The far left are comparable to Communists in the sense that you are for us 100% of the time, or you are an outcast. And in the former USSR, any thought against the state landed you in prison or death. I am not equating the left in this country with Communists, but they have authoritarian similarities.

    Comment by davinci — August 4, 2012 @ 7:48 pm - August 4, 2012

  15. Some people at the Kiss-In did not comport themselves honorably:

    http://legalinsurrection.com/2012/08/chicago-chick-fil-a-kiss-in-protesters-chalk-homeless-street-preacher/

    Comment by V the K — August 4, 2012 @ 7:50 pm - August 4, 2012

  16. Wow…with comments like the title of this post, you would have been a big hit in the south prior to the civil rights act.

    If not hate, then what kind of title would you give it?

    Comment by Kevin — August 4, 2012 @ 8:04 pm - August 4, 2012

  17. Why do you hate free speech Kevin?

    Comment by The_Livewire — August 4, 2012 @ 8:20 pm - August 4, 2012

  18. Wow…with comments like the title of this post, you would have been a big hit in the south prior to the civil rights act.

    Comment by Kevin — August 4, 2012 @ 8:04 pm – August 4, 2012

    Drama queen.

    For you to even compare your situation in the United States today to that of black Americans under segregation, Kevin, is nothing more than the screaming and squalling of a spoiled brat whose idea of “hardship” is having to wait five more minutes for a latte.

    You have nothing intelligent to add to this discussion. Nothing. Your idea of an intellectual argument is to scream that if we don’t give you what you want, we’re racists and homophobes. You have no facts, no figures, no thought, and certainly no concept of what you’re demanding; all you’re doing is screaming names at people who don’t give you what you want.

    This is the most raw and destructive form of exploiting the decency of others. And what people have figured out is that that’s exactly what you’re doing. You don’t respect anyone else’s beliefs or behaviors; you demand what you want, when you want it, on your terms, without any responsibility whatsoever, and if you don’t get it, you scream, cry, throw tantrums, namecall, and vandalize things.

    You’re a brat, Kevin. And brats eventually get spanked. You’ve brought a massive spanking on yourself, and you don’t even recognize it yet.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — August 4, 2012 @ 8:29 pm - August 4, 2012

  19. Hate: “intense hostility and aversion usually deriving from fear, anger, or sense of injury.” – Merriam-Webster Dictionary

    I fail to see the “hostility” in merely stating a differing opinion regarding redefining marriage without making physical threats, intimidation or violence.

    I fail to see the “hostility” in people coming out to support a company by buying food.

    I do see the “hostility” in the LGBT protesters vulgar language ridden and anti-Christian signs.

    I do see the “hostility” in criminal actions destroying private property.

    Disagreement does not equal hate, no matter how much the left tries to redefine it.

    Comment by Chris H — August 4, 2012 @ 8:33 pm - August 4, 2012

  20. Well B. Daniel Blatt, it isn’t always hate. That’s you espousing your ignorance! I do not agree with gay marriage or gay relationships. That is based on my faith that it is a sin. Ever hear the words “hate the sin but not the sinner”? Read the Bible! Answers some question B, Daniel Blatt,

    should intercourse between fathers and sons be legal?
    should intercourse between mothers and daughters be legal?
    should intercourse between fathers and daughters be legal?
    should intercourse between mothers and son be legal?
    should intercourse between brothers, sisters, cousin,s, aunt’s and uncles, grandfathers and grandmothers with any of the above be legal?
    at what age should should children be allowed to give consent for sex?
    at what age should it be illegal for adults to view nude children, nude children having sex?
    should it be legal for any of the above to have sex or marry?
    should it be illegal for any of the above to have sex or marry a horse, dog, cat, or any other animal and should the American people be forced to provide contraception to the animal?
    Think about it B. Daniel Blatt, I would love to hear your lame excuse, but hey, I don’t hate you.

    [Did you even read my post? I’m faulting those who call those who call all opposition to gay marriage “hate”. –Dan]

    Comment by copper — August 4, 2012 @ 8:41 pm - August 4, 2012

  21. Why must opposition to gay marriage always be “hate”?

    Seems to me that Gay Inc. is desperate to find a persecutor. Can’t be a victim without one and gays aren’t being imprisoned or executed. No democrats turning firehoses or attack dogs on them either.

    Comment by TGC — August 4, 2012 @ 8:44 pm - August 4, 2012

  22. BTW, the the vandal has come forward on Huff Blows.

    http://twitchy.com/2012/08/04/tastes-like-hate-meet-manny-castro-hollywood-artist-and-proud-chick-fil-a-vandal/

    Comment by TGC — August 4, 2012 @ 9:03 pm - August 4, 2012

  23. copper,

    I am totally confused by your comment @ #20. You berate B. Daniel Blatt in all manner of ways that do not represent anything he has said or done.

    Somehow, you have entirely misread the gentleman and, I believe, you owe him the courtesy of saying that your rant and repeated addressing of him was totally off the mark.

    Comment by heliotrope — August 4, 2012 @ 9:06 pm - August 4, 2012

  24. Some people at the Kiss-In did not comport themselves honorably:

    http://legalinsurrection.com/2012/08/chicago-chick-fil-a-kiss-in-protesters-chalk-homeless-street-preacher/

    —–

    Absolutely disgusting!

    Comment by gastorgrab — August 4, 2012 @ 9:15 pm - August 4, 2012

  25. Dan – well written and logical. Of course, most folks with a life ruled by a brain can understand. But then there are the fringe people on both ends of the bell curve – Kevin (the Brat) and Copper (the intolerant non-reader); the huge majority read and understand.

    All I ask is that it not be thrust into my face and force me to embrace what I do not care for. I do not like calamari. Putting in front of me is not going to make me like it any more. If you want to eat it, hey, it’s more for you. Live and let live. We are all allowed to have opinions as long as they do not result in actions.

    As you acknowledge, no rights were violated by Mr Cathey’s thoughts or beliefs. In fact, gays are welcomed as employees and customers at every CFA I have been to. At least I think they are as I have never seen anyone turned away as a customer and I do not think there are any suits pending over hiring. On the other hand, I have been told I was not welcome in some establsihments because of my orientation. I simply left with my money, never to return. No big deal, although now….I see a future bright with lawsuits because I am uncomfortable in places I am not wanted. LMAO

    Comment by kbob_in_katy — August 4, 2012 @ 9:41 pm - August 4, 2012

  26. So why are gays in hate groups re heterosexual marriages…I must say the term “breeders” that is widely used is truly hate speech. Maybe 5 percent of normals hate gays but 95 per cent of gays join and support hate groups.

    Comment by Victoria — August 4, 2012 @ 9:50 pm - August 4, 2012

  27. It’s cool that the only leftists to comment on the post so far reinforce our points about leftist hate perfectly.

    Comment by V the K — August 4, 2012 @ 10:53 pm - August 4, 2012

  28. Scott @10: You’re my new best friend. Welcome to the home of SANE gay folks.

    Comment by Bastiat Fan — August 4, 2012 @ 11:20 pm - August 4, 2012

  29. Here’s my comment:

    I really don’t care about Chik-fil-a or gay marriage or gay rights (I do care about individual rights, though). I guess that makes me a bad homo…definitely a bad person. I’ve been told that my card is on suspension, for various reasons, but especially for not caring about this stuff. I should care, dammit! Every night I ask The Universe to help me care and to agree with the other “gays” since they all think the same. Something is wrong with me for not thinking that every Christian, Mormon, and definitely Republican hates me and wants me dead like my colleague who escaped the Palestinian territory, to live in the hater-filled USA (BEFORE Queer as Folk was on Showtime, no less!!!) from the people (including his family) who were trying to kill him, FOR REAL. I guess I’m just a bad bad homo. Chik-fil-a, YOU RUINED MY LIFE!!!

    Comment by AZ Mo in NYC — August 5, 2012 @ 2:19 am - August 5, 2012

  30. Hi!

    I really like your comments here, even though I’m not Gay. It’s strange to read opinions from people so very closely associated with the left that are so similar to mine.

    I’ve got a few questions and I hope that you understand that I’m very new to Gay acceptance.

    Is the stereotypical gay “lisp/accent” normal to your population or is it intentional? (I just scrolled up to look for a Gay FAQ, and couldn’t find one.)

    Approximately what percentage of Gays are conservative?

    The Black-media is now suddenly pro-Gay and compares you all to the civil rights movement. You know why, but every Black man that I know hates Gays. The Black women that I know are more concerned with their hair and nails and Obama. Do you feel any more or less persecuted than Blacks?

    Do the lengths of Gay relationships differ from Heterosexual ones?

    As far as the main topic of marriage, my concern is fraud. Two straight guys/gals would have financial incentive to make a sham marriage for benefits and still be free to be single. Sham marriages exist between opposite sex couple, and are wrong, why have same sex marriages compound this, and at taxpayer expense?

    Best wishes to you all!

    Comment by Bill — August 5, 2012 @ 3:15 am - August 5, 2012

  31. “Is the stereotypical gay “lisp/accent” normal to your population or is it intentional?”

    Bill, this has nothing to do with sexual orientation/preference and it is actually a very strange queston. My mother studied speech therapy and I got to understand several speech impediments. Here is my 2 cents.

    The ‘lisp’ can be caused by defects in the mouth or in the teeth or a wrongly posture of the mouth when speaking, something that a person can acknowledge or not depending on some factors around him/her. In some cultures and countries you are perceived as less intelligent when you have such a speech defect and it might harm your carreer possibilities. Here is why there are speech therapists. I was personally sent to one to correct one when I was not even 5 years old. My mother felt it was the right thing to do and I thank her for that. Maybe my impediment would have faded away on its own because it was not that perceivable.

    You also learn how to speak from your immediate environment. Several times the ‘r’ mispronounced or totally silent (as you would say HAAAVAAHHD to say ‘Harvard’) is manifactured (because perceived as posh) or runs in the family (not as a genetic trait but more as a learnt behaviour).

    Rudolf Giuliani has a very evident lisp and he is not gay. Other famous gay people do not have a lisp.

    The accent (noticeable when you hear the word ‘faaaabulous’) is definately another matter, I used to think it was entirely manifactured but then I overheard some gay people defining it as a gay way of expressing themselves. However this came from a really evidently out gay person. My personal idea is that together with leftism, the fashion sense and listening to Maria Callas it is another one of those well ingrained traits that help them feel part of the tribe. Then there are independent thinkers that do not care about the tribe and therefore speak normally and, gosh, even walk normally.

    Comment by susan — August 5, 2012 @ 4:34 am - August 5, 2012

  32. Is the stereotypical gay “lisp/accent” normal to your population or is it intentional?

    No, it’s not “normal” as in it’s not something we all or even most of us do. I’ve only heard it once. As for effeminate sounding/acting gays, yeah there’s quite a bit of those. I met a 17 y/o kid once who wasn’t even aware of it. I think a lot of gays have a sort of identity crisis, if you will, when we realize that we’re gay. I remember thinking that I didn’t want to be gay because I didn’t want to sound like Buddy Cole. I didn’t try to pretend to be anything I am not, mostly because I suck at trying to convince others of something. Guess I’m too honest.

    I think some folks adopt a sort of persona and probably wind up doing it so much and so often that they’re not aware of it. But that’s just a guess. I have no idea.

    (I just scrolled up to look for a Gay FAQ, and couldn’t find one.)

    Note to Bruce and Dan: Y’all ought to consider a Gay FAQ page. That would be a hoot.

    Approximately what percentage of Gays are conservative?

    No idea. Probably a lot more than one might think or even they themselves think. I’ve seen a few comments on gay sites where someone might say they’d vote Republican if it wasn’t for the opposition to gay marriage. That’s the primary issue with most gays. They can’t see, for some reason, that it’s totally meaningless as long as there’s high taxes, high unemployment, expanding government and shrinking liberty.

    I also think that many vote for the dimwits because they believe they’re supposed to. I’ve met quite a few who firmly believe “The Democrats do more for the gays.”. When you ask for examples, more often than not they have no idea. They may point to something absolutely meaningless like Obama saying he supports gay marriage. That’s all that matters to them, his constant flip-flopping and being against it before he was for it (in a campaign year) matters not.

    Comment by TGC — August 5, 2012 @ 4:43 am - August 5, 2012

  33. “because I think gays would get much further by engaging in legitimate debate than the in your face, deliberately provocative displays that don’t pay any respect to the other opinion or with any attempt to find common ground.”

    I’ve never understood the concept of winning friends and influencing people by taking a huge dump on their rug. Rubbing their noses in it doesn’t seem to sink in either.

    Comment by TGC — August 5, 2012 @ 4:46 am - August 5, 2012

  34. Try being a Tea Party member in Key West and having a discussion with a member of the gay community whose point of view you agree with. I love when I am automatically branded a hater because I want fiscal responsibility in our government.

    Comment by Erinyes — August 5, 2012 @ 6:39 am - August 5, 2012

  35. The left wants to win the rhetorical argument, but not necessarily the logical argument. They want to be able to say, “Ahaaaah”, even if they had to lie to achieve it.

    An good example would be the drive-through bully. Instead of telling the cashier that he was “very not Gay” so as he claimed “to make a point that rights are not an exclusive Gay issue”. Whats wrong with what he did? There should be ZERO fabrications in an OBJECTIVE argument. If you fabricate local temperatures as a Global Warming scientist, you have corrupted the scientific method.

    Comment by gastorgrab — August 5, 2012 @ 8:54 am - August 5, 2012

  36. [...] Gay Patriot wonders why opposition to gay marriage must be hate [...]

    Pingback by Sorta Blogless Sunday Pinup » Pirate's Cove — August 5, 2012 @ 9:42 am - August 5, 2012

  37. gastograb wrote: “The left wants to win the rhetorical argument, but not necessarily the logical argument. They want to be able to say, “Ahaaaah”, even if they had to lie to achieve it.”

    Another word for this is “propaganda.” They are not interested in winning through logic, analysis or evidence; they are happy to put forward fallacious or dishonest arguments to advance their causes. The classical art of rhetoric is ideally supposed to use logic to advance an argument, but the left is happy to engage in sophistries and to employ all manner of logical fallacies and emotional appeals.

    Comment by Kurt — August 5, 2012 @ 12:09 pm - August 5, 2012

  38. Yet, amid all of that CFA-appreciating success, the Church (at least, the part that exists here in America) failed miserably. Every member of the Church isn’t to blame, of course. Many individual churches and denominations played no role whatsoever in promoting yesterday’s Great Chicken Awakening. Some Christians, churches, and denominations even tried to throw a social media wrench into the festivities. Some of those attempts went viral and garnered a great deal of attention. But still, chicken-loving Christians everywhere rallied behind CFA yesterday. The crowds were so big that you might have thought that Chick-Fil-A was giving away free iPads or Cabbage Patch Dolls or freshly fallen manna from Heaven. And while lots of Christians chose not to participate for various reasons, many did and the Church as a whole suffered.
    Here’s why.
    ONE
    Yesterday’s campaign, while I don’t think it should be considered or called “hate,” neither can it be called love. Christians all over America ignored the second greatest commandment: to love our neighbors. Call yesterday what you want, freedom of speech, a rally behind “family values,” a sincere fascination with CFA’s brand of fried poultry… but it cannot be called love. It was not love.
    TWO
    People felt hate and we ignored that. At the end of the day, regardless of whether or not your Christian understanding of scripture harbors hate or not, a large group of people felt hated. Again, we can debate this point all day long, but that does not change the fact that people felt hatred because of what happened yesterday. Whether or not hate actually existed is not the point, people felt hated. And rather than acknowledging those feelings or trying to understand or engage them in any way, Christians everywhere marched off to their local CFA like it was a cross to bear, a necessity, a battle cry of some sort, the waffle fry’s last stand.
    THREE
    By rallying behind CFA, Christians put an issue above people. And it’s impossible to follow Jesus when issues trump people. Jesus never said “love God, love causes.” That is not the message that gets preached in churches all over America on Sunday mornings. I’ve heard a hundred different explanations from patrons of yesterday’s rally and nearly every one of them gives precedence to “the cause”. We can’t embrace love, mercy, hope, and peace when our causes (or a place of business) trumps people.
    FOUR
    Once again, the mass actions of Christians built another wall of distrust between the Church and the GLBTQ communities. Nobody was surprised that the CEO of CFA is against gay marriage. Nobody was surprised that Mike Huckabee made the decision to rally support behind CFA. And nobody was surprised that Christians took Huckabee’s words as marching orders, leading the charge with more passion, delight, and Instagram pictures than what we express for so many more important issues facing this country. If Mike Huckabee had declared yesterday “Homeless Appreciation Day,” would the response have been even half as large and loud? Yes, I know; that’s an unfair question. But we’re Christians, so we’re very familiar with the use of unfair questions to make a point.
    Once in a while, our culture needs to be surprised by how much we love people–all people. Once in a while, our culture needs to be overwhelmed with joy that we are involved in the greater story. Once in a while, our culture needs to see us being a part of the solution and not the problem. But yesterday? There were no surprises. And no surprises only builds more distrust, not peace, not grace, not hope, and not love.
    FIVE
    Yesterday’s hoopla surrounding CFA did nothing to prove that Christians don’t hate gay people. Oh I know that most Christians will say, “I don’t hate gay people!!”
    But did supporting CFA Appreciation Day prove that?
    Trust me, I understand that most people who ate chicken sandwiches at CFA yesterday did not do that as an act of hate. I get that. And that’s cool and all, but did the act of going out of your way to CFA prove that to be true? Do you think that the GLBTQ communities believe you? Would you, if you were gay, believe you?
    Now before you answer that, remember that yesterday’s CFA Love Day was just one action in a long line of many. Because let’s face it: Christians go WAY out of their way to “hate the sin”–i.e., by voting against gay marriage, voting against civil unions, voicing their angst about gay people adopting children (just to list a few). Is it possible that Christians lose the ability to truly “love the sinner” because they’re so busy “hating the sin”? Do Christians put anywhere near the energy into “loving the sinner” as they do “hating the sin”?
    All I know is that the GLBTQ communities are becoming quite used to feeling unloved by Christians. And with good reason.
    How many times do we hear Christians say something like, “I don’t hate gay people. I may not agree with their lifestyle. But I don’t hate them… ”
    If you were gay, would you believe that? Think about it. Would you feel loved by somebody if they included rules, context, and/or explanations about your lifestyle every time they spoke about how much they don’t hate you? Only when talking about gay people do Christians feel the need to preface their “love” or “non-hate” with some variation of “I don’t agree with your lifestyle, but…” Christians don’t talk about any other group of people like that–only gay people.
    So, I want to believe Christians when they say “I don’t hate gay people.” But sometimes proof of that is necessary. And yesterday did not prove that. Honestly, yesterday proved little more than how shallow Christians can be sometimes.
    Not only did supporting CFA Appreciation Day declare that Christians believe that an issue is more important than people, that declaration was made by the mass consumption of junk food. That fact doesn’t need a punch line. It is a punch line.
    Yes, on some level, yesterday was successful. I’m sure that today CFA feels really loved. And I’m sure Mike Huckabee feels loved, too. And I’m sure lots of people, many Christians included, feel great pride for supporting the cause. But there’s also a large group of people, good people, people you might disagree with, that today, feel really unloved.
    If it’s true that Christians don’t hate gay people, today would be a really good day to prove it.

    http://matthewpaulturner.net/f1/5-reasons-why-the-church-failed-yesterday/

    Comment by rusty — August 5, 2012 @ 1:07 pm - August 5, 2012

  39. Personally, I don’t feel the perception that one feels “hated”, regardless of any overt act by the “haters”, means that said haters are engaged in an immoral and evil act. And the person who wrote that has no right to claim I am doing something wrong simply because some aggrieved victim IMAGINES this.

    Personally, I feel kind of hated whenever I see that meme pop up that suggests that the “anti gay bigots” (hello, thanks for the name calling. Have you had a conversation with me about this?) suggests that CFA consumers are being hypocrites because they use computer systems created by gay people and subsidized by gay-supportive companies, and that they would stop using them if they knew this because they are so paranoid and bigoted that they refuse to use anything that might once have been associated with a gay person. Perhaps I should sue everyone who posts that for hate speech. After all, if “hate” comes because I “feel hated”.

    I certainly feel hated by anyone who rationalizes what those awful Chicago protesters did to the homeless man. Not as a Christian or someone who opposes gay rights (because I am barely the first one of those categories and certainly not the second) but as someone who feels that all human beings have the right to equal respect. I know that any one of us who even dares to love Christians or any decent people who believe differently than we do could be a target of those who think this mentality should not be allowed.

    So presumptuous, arrogant Christian who thinks he has the right to call us haters and bigots because of what other people perceive: it works both ways. And no one can really know God. Read your Bible and re-evaluate the golden rule: it also applies to the politically correct.

    Comment by Kat — August 5, 2012 @ 1:29 pm - August 5, 2012

  40. aaah the copy-paste ability…

    Comment by susan — August 5, 2012 @ 1:40 pm - August 5, 2012

  41. Comment by rusty — August 5, 2012 @ 1:07 pm – August 5, 2012

    LOL.

    Notice how rusty screams and cries and whines and tries to dig up every source out there that says you’re a bad Christian if you don’t give rusty and his fellow bigots exactly what they want.

    Well, here’s one showing the racist bigot rusty and his friends beating up on a Christian.

    And here’s another one showing how the bigot rusty is flatly violating Christians’ First Amendment rights.

    So who cares? Anyone who would pander to racist and antireligious bigots like rusty has demonstrated that they care more about promoting racist and antireligious bigotry than they do Christian beliefs.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — August 5, 2012 @ 3:07 pm - August 5, 2012

  42. Rusty @ #38:

    ONE (…..) I don’t think it should be considered or called “hate,” neither can it be called love. Christians all over America ignored the second greatest commandment: to love our neighbors. (…..)

    In what earthly way did the “hate the sin, but love the sinner” crowd fail to show love to their neighbors? Where are the overt expressions displaying a lack of love? And, where is the evidence that the crowd that gathered at Chick-fil-A was motivated by Christian values and opposed to gay marriage? Were polls taken?

    TWO
    People felt hate and we ignored that. At the end of the day, regardless of whether or not your Christian understanding of scripture harbors hate or not, a large group of people felt hated.

    Cry me a river! If a large group announces that they will feel hated if people support those they are boycotting, does that constitute hate? Huh? What kind of silly, juvenile blackmail is that?

    I do not ignore the “fact” of the possibility of a small band of humans who are over-invested in their perceived “victimization” and are ready to throw hissy fits and claim extreme oppression and demand all sorts of attention and special accommodation and an immediate seat at the table of respect.

    THREE
    By rallying behind CFA, Christians put an issue above people. And it’s impossible to follow Jesus when issues trump people. (….) We can’t embrace love, mercy, hope, and peace when our causes (or a place of business) trumps people.

    Pure, unadulterated bullspit. Do you really argue that people, gay and straight, who are boycotting over the issue of legalizing gay marriage are just people and the people who oppose the issue of legalizing gay marriage are just an issue and not people?

    “Hello? Central? Connect me to logic.” This train is so far off the tracks, it will just have to stay in the ditch it prospected for and located.

    FOUR
    Once again, the mass actions of Christians built another wall of distrust between the Church and the GLBTQ communities. (blah, blah, blah ….)

    Huh? It is settled that everyone who showed up at Chick-fil-A was a hardened Christian set of giving the finger to gays, right? Show.me.the.evidence.

    It is to laugh: “another wall of distrust between the Church and the GLBTQ communities” This reminds me of the Palestinians and the Jews never-ending finger pointing where Israel is the aggressor and the Palestinian shoot the rockets.

    Can anyone honestly support the thesis that the “Christians” are out to destroy the “gays” and the “GLBT communities” are working harder than the UN at establishing detente and accords?

    FIVE
    Yesterday’s hoopla surrounding CFA did nothing to prove that Christians don’t hate gay people. Oh I know that most Christians will say, “I don’t hate gay people!!”
    But did supporting CFA Appreciation Day prove that? (blah, fizzle, splat, s-s-s-s-s-s-s )

    So, oh wizard author of ill-logic, by your method of assessing things, can you not claim that everyone in the world who DID NOT go to Chick-fil-A was, in fact, boycotting it and therefore in full, united force with the gays?

    If what is posted at #38 is representative of enlightened, Progressive gay thinking, I call on the Progressive Social Darwinists and authors of Eugenics to reconvene the fit-to-survive panels and get serious about mental diaper rash and congenital drooling.

    The drive-through guy who lost his job and came back to explain himself succeeded only in showing that he has not got a scintilla of a clue of what he did and why he walked straight into a tarring and feathering.

    It appears, from the stuff Rusty found to post that others who marched into the spinning propeller do not get it either. They are still intent on insisting that the propeller came after them.

    Comment by heliotrope — August 5, 2012 @ 5:35 pm - August 5, 2012

  43. I am surprised that anyone found rusty’s cut-and-paste nonsense even worth responding to.

    Comment by V the K — August 5, 2012 @ 5:53 pm - August 5, 2012

  44. V,

    What is so totally obvious to many apparently does not strike a chord with those who set out to write the stuff or those who pass it along. Maybe a synapse will fire as a result of my response. Who knows?

    Comment by heliotrope — August 5, 2012 @ 7:10 pm - August 5, 2012

  45. Personally, I feel kind of hated whenever I see that meme pop up that suggests that the “anti gay bigots” (hello, thanks for the name calling. Have you had a conversation with me about this?) suggests that CFA consumers are being hypocrites because they use computer systems created by gay people and subsidized by gay-supportive companies, and that they would stop using them if they knew this because they are so paranoid and bigoted that they refuse to use anything that might once have been associated with a gay person.

    Heh. I didn’t realize how ridiculous that thing is before, but that is true. I would be very surprised if even the most homophobic person refused to use a computer because Alan Turing contributed to its development. But basically what the people who wrote that are assuming is that people who are opposed to gay marriage wouldn’t continue to support companies that are even remotely supportive of “gay rights” or whatever.

    I think that might be projection.

    Also, I thought the left cared about homeless people. I assume Daily Kos and the Huffington Post rapidly and harshly rebuked those people who harrassed the homeless preacher.

    Comment by Rattlesnake — August 5, 2012 @ 9:05 pm - August 5, 2012

  46. http://www.salon.com/2012/05/17/christianitys_anti_gay_stance_backfires/

    . . . Research conducted by the pro-Christian Barna Group in 2007 on Americans age 16-29 found that “anti-homosexual” was the dominant perception of modern Christians. Ninety-one percent of non-Christians and 80 percent of Christians in this group used this word to describe Christians. . .

    . . . Conservative Christian activists know that the perception of homophobia is damaging, which is why they try to avoid speaking of the issue directly at all, instead saying that they support “traditional marriage.” But the attempts to seem less hateful toward gays while attacking their rights fail repeatedly because homophobes can’t stay on message. . .

    . . . With all this hatefulness on display, no wonder conservative Christianity is losing young people. . .

    Comment by Richard R — August 5, 2012 @ 10:15 pm - August 5, 2012

  47. LOL….isn’t it funny how the desperate bigot Richard Rush tries to turn right and wrong into a popularity contest?

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — August 5, 2012 @ 11:05 pm - August 5, 2012

  48. LOL….isn’t it funny how the desperate bigot Richard Rush tries to turn right and wrong into a popularity contest?

    He fits right in with the moonbat lesbian nuns in my church who have somehow concluded that the Holy Roman Catholic Church is a democracy.

    Stay delusional, moonbats.

    Comment by Bastiat Fan — August 5, 2012 @ 11:17 pm - August 5, 2012

  49. So, Amanda Marcotte is some sort of objective source of information now? What exactly was the point of Richard’s comment?

    Comment by Rattlesnake — August 6, 2012 @ 1:18 am - August 6, 2012

  50. Thus I refute #36 and #48:

    … And yet, the “hater” Baptist, Mormon, and roots-Catholic communions are growing by leaps and bounds, while the more “socially tolerant “‘ and “accepting” Anglican and Episcopalian churches are moribund and losing membership like a dead dog loses fleas. Gee, it’s almost as if the further you have to twist the Bible to keep up with the latest social fads, the fewer people want to become brothers-in-faith with you.
    Seems that anyone who says that Christianity suffered some kind of loss by showing support for fellow Christians, or repulsed anyone who wasn’t already unlikely to fill a pew in any case short of actual Armageddon, is either unacquainted with reality or pumping out some pretty Sovietesque propaganda.

    BF#48: Hail, brother!

    Comment by DaveP. — August 6, 2012 @ 2:52 am - August 6, 2012

  51. Heh. I didn’t realize how ridiculous that thing is before, but that is true. I would be very surprised if even the most homophobic person refused to use a computer because Alan Turing contributed to its development. But basically what the people who wrote that are assuming is that people who are opposed to gay marriage wouldn’t continue to support companies that are even remotely supportive of “gay rights” or whatever.

    That’s been my favourite line of attack as well. Given the governments of OPEC members actively kill gays and lesbians, how can people who want to shut up Chick-fil-a in good conscience drive cars? Or use anything with plastic in it?

    Comment by The_Livewire — August 6, 2012 @ 7:48 am - August 6, 2012

  52. Livewire,

    When the major weapons in the activist gay arsenal involve unleashing hissy fits and glitter bombs, do they get in the face of “other-cheek-turners” or the people who will grab your scrawny neck and execute them in public after drawing a crowd of rabid onlookers and justification fans?

    Richard R seems to limit his focus on those he has least reason to fear. He is still at recess in the fifth grade where he goes over a pushes the second graders around.

    Comment by heliotrope — August 6, 2012 @ 10:42 am - August 6, 2012

  53. Dave P. @50:

    If I may dovetail onto your point, the same phenomenon is happening in my church in “social justice” Catholic parishes where the Mass is for entertainment and Father Razzle Dazzle is “in town all week–2 shows on Sunday!” are dwindling. There is a movement afoot to support non “Novus Ordo” masses and return to the Tridentine Latin Mass. Yeah, that one: where the priest faces the altar, you KNEEL at an altar rail to receive communion and the mass is about a SACRIFICE, not a potluck with a lousy menu.

    People know fake crap when they see it, and are not fooled.

    Comment by Bastiat Fan — August 6, 2012 @ 11:53 am - August 6, 2012

  54. Heliotrope, you are spot-on.

    I have received no answer whatsoever from “Equality” Illinois, HRC, and The Civil Rights Agenda to my challenge to them to hold a “kiss-in” here — despite its owners’ long and documented history of teaching against gays and lesbians — and the fact that all of the profits and revenues of said restaurant go back into the Nation of Islam to spread Farrakhan’s teachings.

    I even challenged Richard Rush on it — and no response.

    Why?

    1) Abusive bigots like Richard Rush and his fellow LGBT “activists” would rather face off against this than black-suited men in bow ties with a history and practice of beating the crap out of anyone who disagrees with them.

    2) Given the latter above, they are acutely aware of whom their precious Obama Party will side with when violence occurs — as in, the police won’t come, no arrests will be made, and Rahm and their precious Obamamessiah will be on TV lecturing them for being “provocative”.

    So you are right. They are bullies, and like most bullies, they are cowards. And more and more people are starting to realize that every minute.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — August 6, 2012 @ 12:03 pm - August 6, 2012

  55. Building off your last point ND30 – The moment when Obama truly lost me happened during the Don’t Ask Don’t Tell repeal debacle. The “activists” conveniently forget how the Obamaniacs were chiding Daniel Choi and SMLDN for being too “proactive” and uppity over their increased protestations over Obama and Reid’s stalling tactics (remember Reid tacking on the Dream Act when it looked like there would be some Republicans supporting repeal DADT). Meanwhile, they were inviting the HRC lackeys to cocktail receptions as a sop for them staying submissive and obedient sycophants.

    Obama was only prompted to finally repeal DADT when he finally realized that the activists weren’t going to shut up and wer actually holding him accountable for his false promises.

    I severed the last thread of connection to BHO at that point when it was clear he would throw his loyal gays to the wolves when it suited him. By the time he “evolved” to giving the wet kiss to deh gays and proclaimed support for SSM, I wanted to splash bleach on myself and take a scalding shower in disgust.

    Comment by PopArt — August 6, 2012 @ 2:51 pm - August 6, 2012

  56. Dave P, the growth of the Mormon church could have something to do with the rather liberal reproductive choices.

    Comment by Cinesnatch — August 6, 2012 @ 9:45 pm - August 6, 2012

  57. Cine- or maybe they offer enough spiritual fare to attract new members and keep old ones, while the “tolerant” Eppy and Angy churches aren’t even persuasive enough to keep their doors from closing; it matters what they offer- and the “tolerant” churches don’t offer any communion that can’t be recieved from, say, a subscription to the New York Times or a half hour listening to NPR.
    BTW- isn’t “them types breed like flies” kind of a bigoted statement for you to make?

    Comment by DaveP. — August 7, 2012 @ 4:10 am - August 7, 2012

  58. @Dave,

    Part of the reason I call myself a Lutheran Heretic is that I seperate with the church on a number of policy decisions, including its stand on Israel. So I have to agree with your point.

    Comment by The_Livewire — August 7, 2012 @ 7:44 am - August 7, 2012

  59. Dave P, perhaps it is. But when someone talks about growth in the Mormon religion, the first thing that comes to mind is their liberal reproductive habits, just like Catholics in the mid-20th century. I grew up in a town where 6-7 kids was a pretty standard Mormon family. Sometimes more, sometimes less. Popular examples like mitt Romney, jon huntsman, orrin hatch, and Patricia Heaton support the idea Mormons tend not to subscribe to zero sum population. The most popular young actors who come from Mormon families, like Jon header, Katharine heigl, amy Adams, and Eliza dushko, all come from families of four or larger. But then you have exceptions like wilford brimley who, to my knowledge, didn’t have any children.

    This isn’t a judgment (otherwise I would write off people like huntsman), but an observation. Perhaps it is a bigoted statement. But I don’t hear anyone refuting the theory that the growth of the Mormon religion is in due large part to their liberal reproductive choices. If you have any links of the such, please share. I would be interested.

    Comment by Cinesnatch — August 7, 2012 @ 11:33 am - August 7, 2012

  60. [...] for traditional marriage does not, however, necessarily mean hatred of gay [...]

    Pingback by GayPatriot » Bloodshed and Invective in the District of Columbia — August 16, 2012 @ 4:20 am - August 16, 2012

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.